Summarize supplied layout JSON into node counts and types, so you can inspect structure without exposing content or settings.
Summarize supplied JSON node types; never return layout content or settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| layout_json | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral guarantee not in the annotations — that layout content and settings are never returned — but says nothing about the actual output shape, truncation, or size handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single 13-word sentence with the action front-loaded and the output constraint second; no filler and nothing to cut.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it only partially does ('never return layout content or settings'). It omits what a summary actually contains (counts, node type names, hierarchy) and gives no input format detail, leaving real gaps for such a terse tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the single required parameter layout_json has no description. The phrase 'supplied JSON node types' vaguely implies the parameter is a JSON layout structure, but adds no format, expected shape, or size guidance beyond the parameter name itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (summarize) and resource (supplied JSON node types), so an agent understands it produces a condensed view of a layout rather than the layout itself. The siblings (list_sites, ping_site, list_documents) are so different in domain that explicit differentiation isn't needed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: use it when you have layout JSON you want summarized. There is no statement of when to prefer this over, say, fetching full document content, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.